The Conspiracy Theory is the klaxon call of those who lack sufficient evidence for their preferred conclusion.

The best available evidence says that 9-11 was not an inside job, and until there is better evidence in support of an alternate theory that explains all of the evidence better than the current one (terrorism), all other competing explanations are necessarily rendered less probable by the current state of the evidence.

You cannot build a competing explanation by cherry-picking supposed anomalies or perceived explanatory gaps, unless you can also account for the entirety of the evidence better than the current leading explanation. No alternate explanation proposed by 'conspiracy theorist' have come remotely close, and are more akin to creationism rather than evolution, in their ability to explain all the known facts.

What is the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE on the total amount of concrete in the towers? How does anyone scientifically analyze the so called collapse without data that simple? To hell with conspiracies! Do the physics! Potential Energy is mass times height times the force of gravity. If the amount of steel and concrete varied among the different levels of the north tower then the potential energy of the tower cannot be computed without steel and concrete data on every level. Does it take 13 years for "scientific" atheists to learn this?

The 10,000 page NIST report admits in three places that they needed weight distribution data to analyze the effects of the impact. The south tower deflected 15 inches due to the aircraft impact. What does that have to do with any conspiracies? But then the NIST never even specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers, much less the distribution.

Fiziks is Fundamental! Do the physics first to figure out the what before going off on who and why.

(07-02-2015 07:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote: When you say 'building a model'? Are you, perchance, talking about computer simulating things? Or... actually building a model of something to test ideas?

Any reasonably accurate physical model and a decent computer model should behave in very similar manners.

But they must both be built according to the same data. So if we do not have accurate data we can't do either one.

Look at the supposed "scientific simulation" done by Purdue.

Quote:"To estimate the serious damage to the World Trade Center core columns, we assembled a detailed numerical model of the impacting aircraft as well as a detailed numerical model of the top 20 stories of the building," Sozen says. "We then used weeks of supercomputer time over a number of years to simulate the event in many credible angles of impact of the aircraft."

If you watch the video there is no horizontal movement of the core columns due to the impact.

But the NIST has a graph of the deflection and oscillation of the south tower at the 70th floor which was 11 floors below where the plane impacted. But Purdue's simulation only goes 6 stories below where the aircraft impacted the north tower. A "scientific simulation" of the building even though empirical data from the NIST demonstrates that more of the building had to have been affected. Moving that much mass takes energy. So where did Purdue's simulation send the energy that did not move their simulated piece of a building?

The trouble with computer models is that they do not actually do physics. They do calculations to simulate physics. A physical model does real physics, but has problems due to the square cube law and strength of materials. But since this was dealt with in 4 months in the case of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge model why can't it be handled in 13 years when we have way better electronic computers. Oh yeah, they didn't have electronic computers in 1940.